The Second American Revolution

[kyleb]

wow MrsSkywalker, i don't really think CosmoKramer meant for anyone to take offence or claim he lived in heaven on earth or something silly like that. best i could tell he was just pointing out that Sweden is one of many great places to live in this world, i have never been there myself but my parents went once and it does sound like quite a nice country from what i have heard. also, granted they don't have quite the cultural diversity up there as we do here, but i am sure they have their own versions of the "Hatfields and the McCoys" type crap, but that is just part of nature.

 

[MrsSkywalker]

It wasn't the first post so much kyle, but the links and the attitude in the next post. Also I tend to take wicked offense to people who refer to me as an "Amerikkkan". Although I would like to believe it may be a just a language slip or fruedian typo, his subsequent post taking stabs at the US for "continuing huge problems with racism" kind of leads me to believe that was an intended offense. He didn't kow the facts, and I educated him. Hopefully now he will have a better understanding about race issues in the US and think twice before assuming we are all "AmeriKKKans".

 

[kyleb]

oh he doesn't think that about us all, i already went though that with him.

 

[CosmoKramer]

In 1997, Scandinavia (I used Finland and Iceland in these figures as well, b/c the rest of the world lumps them in with Scandinavia) had a population of approximately 23,942,300 people total, with a minority population (non Nordic decent) of a mere 281,375.

ROTFLMAO! What kind of crackpot came up those ridiculous figures? Let me inform you that in Sweden 1.7 - 2 million people are first or second generation immigrants. 20-25 % of the population, meaning you almost have as many immigrants (proportionally) as we do

In 1997, the US had an estimated population of approximately 271,290,000 people total, with a minority population of around 65,109,600. In doing the math, that figures out to about a 24% minority population.

Wow....

The ethnic groups listed were: Caucasion, African American, Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, Aluet, Polynesian, Native American and"other"...the "other" accounted for about .7%, or roughly 19,000,000 people.

http://www.migrationsverket.se/pdffiler/statistik/statistik_7.pdf

To sum things up for you, we have a larger minority population than TWICE YOUR TOTAL POPULATION!!!

I'm so impressed right now. I'm always so depressed over the fact the the Scandinavian nations are so small because that makes me unable to be proud of my country...

We are the Great Melting Pot.

Sure (no sarcasm). Still, despite your precious constitution your history of oppressing the coloured minority formally extended well into the sixties. Some african-americans I've talked to say there is still severe racism today.

You have no race problems? YOU HAVE NO RACES!!!

See above.

Let me extend an invitation. I want you to come over to the US

Let me assure you that I never ever intend to set my foot in the USA (I can see you all crying now ).

Nowhere else in the world has the diversity that we do

See I don't believe that. Lots of places around the globe have very mixed ethnicity - it is not strictly an american phenomenon.

When you are comparing one thing to a group of things, then to derive the proper comparison you must do an average of the individual parts of the whole.

No, you need a weighted average with respect to the population sizes. Like so: (8.9/18.6)*2 + (4.5/18.6)*1 + (5.2/18.6)*14 =5.11


However, this is more than a little silly considering that you apparently don't get that my posts about the glory of Scandinavia has simply been to hold up a mirror for you yanks, to make you understand how arrogant and tiresome americans often sound. Get it yet?

However, elitists like yourself just get under my skin. You're not perfect. Neither is your country. No one's country is, get over it.

Agree 100% *holds up mirror*

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I really wish someone would summarise this entire thread in 2-5 lines.

 

[Gunhead]

The summary:

Pascal linked to a website with an alternative view. Lots of elephants quickly jumped on him.

Then a chorus agreed that Saddam is evil.

Then begun an off topic comparison of clichés about the USA and clichés about the Nordic Countries.

End of summary.

Additional Note:

In the discussion it remains yet unresolved whether it's okay to invade a country simply because you dislike the administration (perhaps a brutal one that allows capital punishment) or because it produces weapons (consider it extra bad if the country has used mass destruction weapons like gases [Iraq] or nukes [USA] against people).

If it's okay, then you don't need to apply for a license from the UN to attack the country; it's considered fair game.

However, I don't have my copy of The International Law at hand to verify this.

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

It's become very clear to me that any debate on these issues quickly get dragged down the gutter with irrelevent dribble. This is probably because of a few things

o The lack of a well constructed debate question
o The bias due to the background and beliefs of the writer
o Generally having 'made up his/her mind' before the post even began

To me this war shows a bigger problem than just WMD or terrorism. This war has exposed a fundemental crack that has existed in the fundations of the UN but remained largely unexposed to the internatinal community until now.

The situation we have is that well established conventions of war are being broken, but with an arguably good reason. After 12 years of peaceful disarmament, Iraq still has much unaccounted weapons. Disarmament has pretty much failed in that sense. The scuds that hit Kuwait yesterday are proof of this process. This is indeed a problem. It's not far fetched to see that if we left Iraq 'lose' for a few years, those missles could be far more capable and be delivering nuclear payload. If this occured, Iraq would have reached 'nuclear deterrance' and military action becomes many fold more difficult, eventually harbouring a 'North Korea' case in the Middle East. This clearly can not be allowed to happen.

This is the apparent problem, and due to the failure of the UN process war has began. A bigger problem however is the process in which this had occured. As pointed out before, after WW1 and WW2, the world came together and formed a body to prevent such disasters from occuring again. This United Nations, no matter how crudy serves a purpose that is in the greatest interest of humanity's long term survival; no one needs another world war, not in the nuclear era. Although pre-emptively attacking Iraq in all its arguements is for the good and stability of the world in the long term, the by-passing of the UN is critically dangerous.

This problem isn't not obvious. The US for all its faults isn't a bad country. It is only for this reason that WW3 hasn't started. If some lunatic took power in the U.S. and democracy crumbled, we can no longer have this luxury. We can't rely on the relative good will and stability of the US for world order. There must be rules that must be adhered to when attacking a country, and any country no matter how powerful must not simply by-pass them. I recognize the inadequacy of the UN in this case. However, ignoring the established conventions after absorbing the horrors of two world wars is equally disturbing.

A lot of the points raised are irrelevent for this debate. Torture, human rights and a lot of the points raised by MrsSkywalker has nothing to do with this war. Such horrors are common in many countries in the world. They do not serve for the basis for a military invasion. Stick to the points on WMD, disarmament, and UN resolutions. Only they serve as cases for military intervention.

Now let me ask for a favour, please try to be objective in your response. I've tried my best. If your reply is just one sided defense, then what is there to argue? This is a problem of WMD and UN fallacy. This also the problem of crumbling centry old conventions and one superpower having the tendency to by-pass world organisations (UN, War Crimes Court). This problem isn't a problem yet because this country is relatively cool. But what happens when this fails to be the case? Both are problems, so please don't just pretend the ones you aren't arguing for don't exist.

 

[MrsSkywalker]

It's become very clear to me that any debate on these issues quickly get dragged down the gutter with irrelevent dribble.

I agree, but no one said you have to read it. This is a forum for speaking your mind, and while I agree that often tempers flare and the soapboxes are dragged out, the "dribble" is just an outlet for frustrations. There are lots of emotions in a time of war...lots of insecurities, too. Any discussion which occurs in a time of high emotions is bound to swerve off topic no and then as a way of venting. Basically we're arguing just to argue, and I don't see anything wrong with that. So, thank you, Oh Great Forum Guru for putting us back on topic. We are eternally in your debt.

To me this war shows a bigger problem than just WMD or terrorism. This war has exposed a fundemental crack that has existed in the fundations of the UN but remained largely unexposed to the internatinal community until now.

I couldn't agree with you more.

This United Nations, no matter how crudy serves a purpose that is in the greatest interest of humanity's long term survival;

This is where we differ, I'm afraid. I believe that the UN is supposed to serve a purpose, and I agree that it was founded with the best humanitarian intentions, and function for many years to that end. However, I see the problems with the UN as this: I do not believe that one country should have total veto power on the security counsel. I believe we need to re-assess the members of the UN who sit on the security counsel, and perhaps do an entirely new vote. The current problem only shined a spotlight on the fact that as a "governing" body, the UN is no longer effective, and a redesign is necessary. They are supposed to be a humanitarian organization, and right now there are too many politicians (US reps included) in there.

There must be rules that must be adhered to when attacking a country, and any country no matter how powerful must not simply by-pass them. I recognize the inadequacy of the UN in this case.

It wasn't the inadequacy of the UN as a whole, but rather the veto thing in the security counsel I spoke of earlier. It's not possible to have a democracy when one person can veto the votes of the masses.

However, ignoring the established conventions after absorbing the horrors of two world wars is equally disturbing.... Torture, human rights and a lot of the points raised by MrsSkywalker has nothing to do with this war. Such horrors are common in many countries in the world.

What would have happened if we kept ignoring Hitler? There is not one person who believes we should not have gotten involved in WWII, right? I think that crimes against humanity have a lot to do with the issue at hand, a feeling further confirmed by the reactions of our Iraqi "prisoners of war". You may not feel that it is a good reason to invade a country and start a war, but I most certainly do. Think of how many lives may have been saved if the UN had actually decided to do something in Rwanda. Nearly a million people were slaughterd, and the UN didn't act. Yet, even in your own words, the UN "serves a purpose that is in the greatest interest of humanity". They didn't act then, and nothing was being done. I don't see it as the US by-passing the UN, I see it as us taking action to avoid another Rwanda. Maybe that's the fundamental difference of opinion I am having with the protesters and the people I've been arguing with on the boards. Whether or not taking out a vile dictator for no other reason but to free his people is a currently acceptable war starter or not, I think it should be. And the act itself does not mean the US is trying to take over. It should be a reflex action of the world to get rid of "evildoers" (sorry for the Bush-ism...couldn't think of any other way to put it) That was what I was trying to say, and it is on topic...mostly

But what happens when this fails to be the case?

I would like to think that this country could never do something like take over the world, but you're right. All it would take is a Hitler, Stalin, or Hussein talking to the huddled masses about the "beautiful new world" he can lead them to. People individually wouldn't buy it, but you get a group of humans together, and that kind of crap spreads like mold. In a case like that, I honestly and without any hesitation would want our allies to get rid of him, even if I died in the insuing war. People like that should not be tolerated, no matter if it is just "their own people" that are suffering.

 

[pascal]

Have you ever considered the possibility of disarming Sadam to an acceptable level without a war (but with UN pressure backed by many countries?)

Have you ever considered that we do not believe Iraq can be disarmed to an "acceptable level" as long as a lying, decpetive, despodic Saddam is in power?

Have you really tried to disarm him with peacefull means? Why have US undermined and destroyed any attempt of OPCW to negotiate with Iraq some time ago?

Now suppose you are right he cannot be disarmed without war then why this war without consensus? What is the root of the problem that after certain point most people are suspicious about US?

 

[Crusher]

In the discussion it remains yet unresolved whether it's okay to invade a country simply because you dislike the administration (perhaps a brutal one that allows capital punishment) or because it produces weapons (consider it extra bad if the country has used mass destruction weapons like gases [Iraq] or nukes [USA] against people).

I think the main problem is that people try to lump everything into categories and small sets of rules that have no contingency for any particular nuances of a given situation.

Typical position: "Oh, the U.S. is attacking Iraq without the backing of the U.N., and without having been attacked first, this has never been done before, this can't be the right way."

Ignoring the fact that the U.N. hasn't been around long enough to say whether something done a certain way is right or not with respect to it's policies, using generalized rules like 'don't invade another country if you haven't been attacked first' have no value. There hasn't been a situation like this before, ever. There has never been a large attack on a civilian building in the U.S., let alone one brought by an organization with no national ties. The U.S. can't be going against U.N. policy because the U.N. doesn't have a policy for this situation.

Try as hard as you want to compare Saddam's regime in Iraq, and Bush's decision to go to war, with any previous event in history. The comparisons are barely similar at first glance, and fall apart easily under scrutiny. The closest you can come to comparing anyone with Saddam would be Castro. The large differences there being that Castro doesn't actively support terrorist regimes, and Cuba got rid of the nuclear weapons when it was supposed to. People compare the Bush to Hitler, ignoring the fact that Hitler attacked his own country long before invading any other countries, he attacked civilians as well as the military when he invaded other countries, he recruited children to fight for him, he occupied the countries he invaded with the intent to control them indefinitely, and he attacked all of the countries that disagreed with him, not merely the ones he was trying to conquer. Oh, not to mention the fact that Hitler was the one committing atrocities against civilians, where as in this situation, that award is held by Saddam.

Which reminds me, Saddam also tried to invade and conquer his neighboring countries, just like Hitler. Why aren't those two being compared again?

Oh yeah, I forgot, the flavor of the month is "Amerikka World Domination", and everyone with half a brain likes the taste. Thankfully those of us with a whole brain think a little more clearly.

 

[Crusher]

Oh, and as for Pascal's original articles, I stopped looking at them after the first paragraph when I saw the most blatant and irresponsible example of quoting something out of context I've ever seen. It's fairly obvious that those opinions are not expressed to even make a vague attempt at convincing anyone on the other side of the argument, but simply exist to encourage and enflame people who already agree with them. And yes, try as hard as you might to prove the credibility of them, they are literally nothing more than editorial OPINION articles, with absolutely no value in terms of factual discussion, which is probably why no one wants to have a factual discussion about them.

 

[Crusher]

Now suppose you are right he cannot be disarmed without war then why this war without consensus?

Because rather than admitting that war is sometimes necessary, there are certain people in the world who hold the opinion that "war is never the answer". These people are especially loved by tyrants such as Saddam, much like nerds who "never fight back" are loved by the school bully. Similarly, trying to get Saddam to disarm peacefully (note that that is entirely different than trying to get him to disarm willingly) is like trying to stop the school bully from beating up on kids by having a teacher watch over him during recess. It may work fine for the hour of recess each day, but that's not going to stop him from beating kids up on their way home from school.

No matter how many atrocities Saddam commits, and no matter how much he blatantly lies to the United Nations, and no matter how many times his lies are exposed, people still make Bush out to be the bad guy.

On a side note, how in the world did I end up writing three posts trying to defend Bush? I hate Texas. I hate Texas's government. I didn't vote for Bush. Maybe that's why I feel so disgusted with war protesters; they make me defend someone I don't want to defend, and admit that I agree with someone I don't want to agree with.

 

[790]

I support the war, but the deeper issue this war has exposed is how easily international democracy can crumble and the US can go off and do what it wants.

America has made awful decisions in the past, such as Vietnam, and we all hope something like that will never happen again. But the fact is it WILL happen again while our leaders are merely humans (furthermore, merely politicians ), so it's critical that there are appropriate safeguards in place.

The UN should grow from this experience, not wither away. Changes do need to be made, but I hope there isn't a single person who doesn't believe in the importance of International democracy in this world, even if they have reservations about the current incarnation of it.

 

[RM. Andersson]

Most countries represented in the UN are not democratic. They dont care about human rights. The inividuals speaking for such nations have interests that are very different compared to the interests of the people in the country they are supposed to represent.

This is reality. It´s pointless to deniey it. The UN is not UDN, United Democratic Nations.
If it was it might be best to always let them decide what to do.
In reality UN would still inspect a Iraq ruled by Saddam Husseins grandchildren 2045 if they continued with their metods and logic.

In reality UN protects the interests of the dictators. They use UN to stay in power and continue to murder their own people.
UN is a tool they can use to stop anyone that wants to do anything.
Anyone that care about human rights and democracy must realize this.
The dictator has rights protected by the UN because he is equal to any democratic leader. And that means that UN often cant do anything.
Any attempt to stop a dictator can be prevented because he has the rights of his nation. Some of the worst regimes, such as China, also has the right to veto and can stop anything.

The UN is of course better than nothing. Sometimes UN can prevent wars.
But this does not mean that it is always best to let them decide.

 

[Riptides]

We are the Great Melting Pot.

Sure (no sarcasm). Still, despite your precious constitution your history of oppressing the coloured minority formally extended well into the sixties. Some african-americans I've talked to say there is still severe racism today.

Yes, most of us black folks do really hate whitey.

 

[790]

Andersson, the UN doesn't work like that. Iraq, or rogue dictators, do not sit on the security council, nor are they protected by any sacred scripture. Five permanent members, and 10 rotational members do. These members are chosen by the power of the respective countries, which is the only realistic way to do things.

You're talking nonsense about inspections until 2045. America plays a huge part in the UN, and this is evident through 1441 and what was almost a second resolution authorizing war. Inspections were coming to an end, the only question was time, and whether it would come to an end through Iraqi cooperation, or military action. Even France would have authorized war given a few more months.

We can get into a long debate about when the right time to attack was, and how much was getting done due to the new pressure on Iraq, but the point is, the UN reflected international opinion very well, and that includes America's opinion.

I hope you don't think it's a bad thing that there's a lot of red tape and a complex dimplomatic process to go through to get authorization for war.

As I said, I don't think the UN is perfect, but you're just showing a blatant lack of understanding of the process in your supposition that it is out to protect murdering dictators.

 

[RM. Andersson]

China is a permanent member. That´s a fact.

12 years is a long time. The fact that Iraq still has weapons that are not allowed after all that time proves that the process and the metods are not working as intended.
You can continue to say "just one more month" forever.
Why should things change after 12 years and 17 resolutions?
There is no reason to believe that. Of course some people want to believe it for different reasons. I dont.

I think I understand rather well how the UN works. I think it´s better than nothing. And I agree that it can prevent wars. It can make nations talk to each other instead of starting wars.
But it can also be used by murdering dictators. It´s not perfect.

 

[790]

Of course China's a permanent member. It's the second largest economy in the world, and has the largest military. You can't have a united nations without them, even if you don't like them personally.

You seem to be confused. The USA is just as responsible for the 12 years as any other nation. The whole world sat back after the Gulf War happened. UN or no UN, wouldn't have changed that. Most of the world, including the US, wasn't bothered by Iraq because they concluded them contained. When, last year, Bush decided that it was again an interest to us, the UN pushed through 1441 unanimously. The heat was on again, inspections were progressing faster than they ever had since 1991, the UN was working! Inspections weren't exactly zooming along, and the US was getting impatient, so work began on a second resolution. France got difficult, Bush got fed up waiting, and it went wrong.

That's what happened, not your simplistic take on things where you seem to think it was a bunch of UN hippies and 0 inspection progress against the USA.

 

[RussSchultz]

Iraq, or rogue dictators, do not sit on the security council, nor are they protected by any sacred scripture. Five permanent members, and 10 rotational members do. These members are chosen by the power of the respective countries, which is the only realistic way to do things.

Lets see who's on the council right now, shall we?

France
Germany
Guinea
Mexico
Pakistan
Russian Federation
Spain
Syrian Arab Republic
United Kingdom
United States
Angola
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Chile

Nope, not a dictator in the bunch. They're all chosen based on their power (I'm guessing that's what you suggested).

Not.

 

[pascal]

Oh, and as for Pascal's original articles, I stopped looking at them after the first paragraph when I saw the most blatant and irresponsible example of quoting something out of context I've ever seen. It's fairly obvious that those opinions are not expressed to even make a vague attempt at convincing anyone on the other side of the argument, but simply exist to encourage and enflame people who already agree with them. And yes, try as hard as you might to prove the credibility of them, they are literally nothing more than editorial OPINION articles, with absolutely no value in terms of factual discussion, which is probably why no one wants to have a factual discussion about them.

So you read the first paragraph and discard it!!! Then you try to qualify me as irresponsible??? Are not all articles a mix of facts and opinions??

We (you and I) dont have to agree with it in part or entirelly.

I think this article is good to show what people around the world is worried about.